The Court of Appeal has rejected a bid to give young people caught up in legal proceedings, including victims and witnesses, lifelong anonymity.

Three judges unanimously dismissed claims that they were legally entitled to keep their identities secret once they turned 18.

Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 gives under 18s in criminal proceedings in adult courts anonymity and protection from the glare of potentially harmful publicity.

Today two teenagers referred to as JC and RT who appeared at the Old Bailey at the age of 17, asked the appeal court to rule that the law also allowed anonymity to be extended beyond 18.

Lord Justice Moore-Bick, vice-president of the civil appeal court, and two other judges, rejected the claim. In particular they dismissed the assertion that such a move was necessary in the interests of the rehabilitation of offenders.

The judge declared: “I am satisfied the purpose of section 39 is not to promote rehabilitation of young offenders but to protect children and young persons who are caught up in legal proceedings from the adverse effects of publicity to which they might otherwise be exposed.

“An order made under section 39 is effective only during the minority of the person in respect of whom it is made and expires automatically on his or her 18th birthday”.

Lord Justice Laws and Lady Justice King agreed.

They upheld a decision by Sir Brian Leveson, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, and two other High Court judges that Section 39 could not be applied to over-18s.

Lord Justice Laws referred to Sir Brian’s expression of concern over the state of the law.

Sir Brian had commented that Section 39 made no separate provision for the treatment of “three entirely different classes of children” in criminal proceedings – defendants, victims and witnesses.

Sir Brian had warned that Parliament needed to act “with real urgency” to provide “individual and tailor-made protection”.

He gave as an example victims of female genital mutilation.

Lord Justice Laws said Sir Brian had raised “a powerful argument” and legislative changes were now under consideration by Parliament.

If the changes went ahead, they would allow a Crown Court to impose a lifelong ban on publicity for victims and witnesses of crime, but not ban the naming of defendants who are under 18 when proceedings against them commence.

The judges said JC and RT could keep their anonymity while their legal teams considered whether to appeal against the appeal court’s ruling to the Supreme Court.

At their trials both pleaded guilty to possession of explosives.

The Crown accepted that they did not intend to endanger life or cause serious damage to property and they were given community sentences.

A third teenager, since named as Michael Piggin, admitted similar charges but was accused of more serious offences, including under the Terrorism Act 2000.

All three began with the benefit of an order under Section 39, preventing their identification by the media.

Following the guilty pleas of the first two defendants, the recorder lifted the ban on identification of Piggin.

The jury could not agree, and a retrial was ordered.

By this time, all three defendants had reached the age of 18.

The first two, who had been given community sentences, applied for judicial review, challenging the recorder’s view that their anonymity orders expired on their 18th birthdays.